Unfortunately, I think the United States will take exactly the wrong message from its internal climate refugees.

Lifeboat ethics.

“We have to close our borders and deport refugees from other countries so we can help our own climate refugees.”

“Millions of illegals!”

“Actually, the people you’re referring to are legally in the United States with temporary protected status…”

“They’re still here illegally because I say so, illegal illegal lalala”

“Climate change isn’t real, but if it was, we would need to pump more oil and natural gas in the United States to make our energy sector strong for the oncoming crisis.”

“Oh, and don’t buy solar panels from China, because they’re dirty foreigners.”

And Walz, who spent the whole debate staring at the podium scowling like a rotten jack-o’-lantern, was so out of it he couldn’t effectively call out Vance’s bogus definition of clean energy and bring up the Build Back Better plan and Biden’s investments into the US energy economy.

What the fuck.

deleted by creator

Sure. The Google term you’re looking for is called “discourses of delay”.

Tldr: The propagandists recognize the global consensus, that climate change is real and must be addressed, is too strong to attack directly. Instead, they work to discredit potential solutions and discourage people from acting. The hope is to delay action on climate change until fossil fuel companies run out of oil to sell.

The four ways corporate propaganda encourages climate delay are by redirecting responsibility (“someone else should act on climate change before or instead of you”), pushing non-transformative solutions (“fossil fuels are part of the solution”), emphasizing the downsides (“requiring electric vehicles will hurt the poor worst”), and promoting doomerism (“climate change is inevitable so we may as well accept it instead of trying to fight it”).

And here’s the thing. We need both individual and collective action to mitigate climate change.

Arguing that only individual action can stop climate change is delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

Arguing that only collective action can stop climate change and individual action is useless is also delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

The propaganda takes an extreme position on both sides and encourages people to fight with another instead of unifying and acting - much like how foreign propagandists in the United States take aggressive, controversial positions on the far left and far right to worsen dissent and discourage unity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/08/05/scientists-dissect-the-tactics-of-climate-delayers/

European scientists last month catalogued what they call the “Four Discourses of Climate Delay”—arguments that facilitate continued inaction.

1 Redirecting Responsibility

U.S. politicians blaming India and China, Irish farmers blaming motorists, organizations blaming individuals—these common techniques evade responsibility and delay action.

“Policy statements can become discourses of delay if they purposefully evade responsibility for mitigating climate change,” the scientists say.

The scientists label as “individualism” the claim that individuals should take responsibility through personal action. I asked if it weren’t also a discourse of delay when activists insist that individual climate action is pointless, that only systemic action can address the problem.

That too is a discourse of delay, replied Giulio Mattioli, a professor of transport at Dortmund University. The team considered including it under the label “structuralism,” but decided it’s not common enough to include.

(Depends on where you are. I’d argue that’s very, very common among high consumption American activists.)

A fascinating study about how much people have internalized these discourses of delay is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000797#:~:text=Consisting of four overarching narratives,with its own emotional resonance)%2C

How do you expect to change those few dozen companies?

Especially if the majority of us really wouldn’t be able to survive without them?

We’re actually to the point where wanting people to consume fewer fossil fuels makes me a fossil fuel shill.

Wow.

The absolute state of rhetoric today.

Your vote is also 1 in 26 million. Do you believe that has an effect?

Again, carbon footprint is not a BP talking point. It was a pre-existing concept that was appropriated by BP to prevent climate change legislation by shifting responsibility for climate change to individual consumers.

And then, some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.

In reality, both individuals and corporations bear responsibility for climate change, and both of the above arguments are corporate propaganda aimed at getting you to give up, do nothing, and buy shit.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

The article discusses this, yes - along with how the carbon footprint is a good metric for individual consumption even if corporate propaganda abuses it.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

I agree with you that political action is vital. I don’t agree that it’s necessarily more significant than personal action. Feminists used to say “the personal is political”, and it’s still true. How you act in private demonstrates your commitment to the values you endorse in public and gives your voice more weight when you speak your values.

If you reduce your personal footprint, but never talk about it or encourage other people to do the same, your impact is limited to yourself. If you reduce your personal footprint, and make your actions contagious by talking about them with people you know and encouraging them to do the same, you can impact many more people, encourage them to follow your lead and reduce their footprint, and then they can encourage others to reduce their footprint, and so on and so forth.

Limiting the damage from climate change takes collective action. And collective action requires a community, and a community requires communication.

If you assume you are a lone individual and your personal decisions have no effect on anyone else, it’s easy to imagine reducing your personal footprint is meaningless. If you see yourself as part of a community, and by reducing your personal footprint you encourage others in your community to do the same, you can see how much larger your impact can be.

Little free libraries are easy to censor. It happens all the time. People come along and remove and trash books they disagree with. If the content is particularly bad, they might smash up the library or vandalize the house it’s in front of.

So in conservative areas, little free library owners self-censor to avoid backlash from their neighbors.

What a lot of people forget is that America is a conservative country, and becoming even more so with increased immigration from conservative countries. “Protecting” children from content that condones, or even mentions, gay and transgender people is widely popular even in blue states.

Since Democrats Republicans are so corrupt they refuse to abolish the antidemocratic electoral college and have already ~~lost~won two elections they had the majorityminority of votes in.

FTFY.

Capitalists gonna capital, and developers gonna develop.

It’s amazing how many self-described environmentalists keep chanting “build more solar!” and “build more wind!” and “build more nuclear!” as if the developers for those projects aren’t the exact same people building subdivisions and coal power plants and bulldozing endangered species and historic sites to make a buck. As if we can develop our way out of the global environmental collapse we developed our way into. It’s hilarious, except it’s not funny at all.

The obvious question to me is, what did he do with his money?

He sold his house for $300k when he moved into the governor’s mansion four yars ago, but he didn’t keep the money from the sale? He has an upper middle class salary, but no savings?

Either he’s got a bunch of credit card debt to pay off or a drug habit, or he keeps his savings in cash under his mattress. But money doesn’t just vanish like that.

We should all be going after corporations and lobbyists, not individuals.

If we “go after” corporations and lobbyists, the individuals who buy their products will defend them.

We can’t effectively fight factory farming when meat eating individuals demand politicians protect their hamburgers.

We can’t effectively fight Big Oil when individual drivers demand politicians give them cheap gas and wider roads.

We can’t effectively fight plastic production when individual customers demand plastic straws and bags and disposable everything.

The idea that we can change capitalist society from the top down is a fiction designed to lull the individual consumer into a state of mindless consumption. You can keep driving and eating meat and throwing away bag after bag of plastic, without guilt, because they tell you your individual choices don’t matter. You can continue living your unsustainable lifestyle and buying everything the capitalist machine sells, because you’re voting for the right politicians, and that means you’re doing your part.

Come on.

Food Not Bombs has a cookbook with a similar style of “protest food” recipes.

Is this really a surprise? Both candidates are 80-year-old rich white men. They don’t give a shit about the environment personally, because they’re going to be dead before things get really bad. They don’t give a shit about the environment for the sake of their families, because their families have enough generational wealth to guarantee them a seat in the metaphorical ark. And when politicians have no personal investment in a cause they don’t talk about it. Shocker.

Sounds like an excuse.

What I mean is: it sounds like his handlers kept making excuses and you kept accepting them because you wanted to believe them.

I know, I’m frustrated too. I dismissed the Alex Jones Fox News crowd because they were known liars, they’d lied to us for decades, and this really did seem like standard conservative projection to deflect from their candidates’ obvious mental issues.

Hate to admit it. But the conservatives were right and we were wrong.

Yes. Stealing. From the taxpayers that maintain that forest. From the public who owns the property.

And from the indigenous people who originally lived there - these people are very clearly not Aboriginal Australians.

I’ve heard Native American activists argue that white influencer style permaculture is inherently racist when performed on American soil, because it’s modeled on a romanticized ideal of white settler lifeways and has nothing to do with how permaculture was actually practiced in North America before the genocides. I’m not sure how I feel about that argument. But having a family of white Australian permaculturists literally stealing from public land to maintain their settler lifestyle… it’s a little too on the nose.

So here’s the thing. Just Stop Oil is performing symbolic disruption and vandalism. And they are doing it to exactly the targets you say they should - for example, Taylor Swift’s private jet.

And they are also performing symbolic vandalism against works of art and history.

And I submit the way you feel about them targeting Stonehenge is very similar to the way a wealthy conservative feels about them targeting private jets - it offends you even though it does no actual harm because it’s an attack on something you value and something you feel should be respected, which makes you feel like it’s an attack on you personally.

Just Stop Oil has been very clear about why they symbolically vandalize works of art - because every dollar you spent on preserving human art and history is meaningless if the human species drives itself to extinction, and anyone who cares about art and history needs to get off their asses and demand political change. They do it because people who care more about art than the environment are the people they’re trying to shake up and motivate.

Preserving art is a bourgeois luxury. If we as a species don’t get off our asses and fight climate change we won’t have any art left to preserve or any human beings left to appreciate it.